The "M" motor is officially dead, no more unique/ground up M engines - BMW confirms all future M (S series) motors to be based on motors already in production

So you know that awesome BMW S85 V10 revving over 8000 rpm giving somewhat of a direct link to the Motorsport division that seemed equally at home in an Italian exotic as it did under the hood of a BMW sport sedan? Yep, that one with the individual throttle bodies, over 100 horses per liter, that won all those awards, and that you could not get anything like it in a 550i, 545i, 535i, 530i, 528, or 525i? You know, a real unique M motor made specifically for an M car and only available in an M car? Say goodbye to ever seeing that again.

From now on, every M motor will simply be based on an engine already in production. That means whatever cylinder count and block is already available in a chassis is all you will ever get standard model or M model be damned. The M purist has been moaning about this for years that BMW M motors will essentially just become their standard counterparts with some different software but the head of BMW M (Friedrich Nitschke) finally officially confirmed the days of the unique M motor built from the ground up by the M division are quite simply, over:

So the engines will be closer to the standard engines. We already see that in the N63/S63 motors a good example being the X5 50i and X5 M. For BMW this means huge cost savings and that certain internal parts do not even need to be changed. For example, the same pistons can be used for both an M and non-M motor now:

So don't expect to see anything made by the M-Division like an S54 ever again. Or an S38. Or an S65. Or an S85. Or an S14. Those are not motors you can just slap different software on and simply call M engines. The M division is officially dead kids along with BMW's pride, get it through your heads.

But emission regulations become stricter every year and they are easier to meet with forced induction engines. This certainly plays a big role in this whole change. Then car manufacturers get taxed based on fleet fuel consumption. Many factors which go against gas guzzling engines à la S65 or S85.

And somehow Audi still made the RS5 happen with its thirsty, high-revving V8.

There is really no excuse to do this besides saving money for BMW and to gouge with performance software packs. I envision it will be somewhat similar to what DLC has done to video games. Used to you would get a complete game when you bought one new, but now there are features intentionally held back and sold later for additional cost. This is exactly what turbocharging is going to allow BMW to do and you can bet the farm they will be doing it.

And forget seeing a discounted M3/M4 MSRP because of these efficiencies. This is the typical situation where cost cutting measures only equal bigger paychecks at BMW, not lower prices for consumers.

The non-M E36 debuted in Europe in 1990, and the E36 M3 debuted in Feb of '92, so it most certainly began development in the 80s; normal development lifecycle is around 5 years. I agree with what other people in the thread have said, the S52 was not a real M motor, it was a cost cutting marketing move by M. A bored/stroked M50 with hotter cams does not an M motor make. It's the era equivalent of doing a different exhaust manifold and a tune. That said, it was a hell of a lot more differentiated than what the S55 likely will be. And that is indeed a sad day. Not to mention the continued watering down of the base car by BMW; the F10 and F30 are both extremely disappointing to drive. Which makes it that much more difficult to make an enchanting M car. They really should just call it what it is...the BMW ///Marketing division. It's all part of a steady downward march, one that will make me cherish my S38 even more. The saying "they don't build them like they used to" is more true today than it ever has been.

And somehow Audi still made the RS5 happen with its thirsty, high-revving V8.

That's a current line up engine. We're talking about the future here. The current m3 also has a high revving v8. You don't know what audi is going to do in the future, but I bet that the next rs4/rs5 also has a turbocharged engine.
It's all about money, taxes. These cars are not only sold in the USA where taxes are way way WAY! less than some other parts of the world. Where I live, every gram of CO2 emission above 229grams/km (and all these cars are above that value) is taxed with $730,-. And the part below 229grams also has a tax of $28000,-. And that is just CO2 tax. VAT is also 21%.
For a current M3 (290grams/km co2), the co2 tax alone is $28000,- + $44530,- = $ 72530,-
Yes, I know, ridiculous, but thats how it goes in some other parts of the world (needless to say you almost never see a (new) corvette or viper around here).
And BMW sells cars in those parts too. The USA may be a big (the biggest) market as 1 country, but on a global scale it's absolutely not the dominant market (what I mean is that bmw sells more cars in the rest of the world than in the USA).

That's a current line up engine. We're talking about the future here. The current m3 also has a high revving v8. You don't know what audi is going to do in the future, but I bet that the next rs4/rs5 also has a turbocharged engine.

Maybe that will happen, and you make some good points. However the V8 RS5's and M3's, though both current, are about as far apart as they can be while still being labeled as both being current. Audi's high-revving V8 was also current in the RS4 when the E9x M3's were introduced back in 2007...

Furthermore, Audi has used turbocharging much more extensively in the past compared to BMW. In fact BMW's turbocharged motors where only just starting to come online when the E9x M3 was introduced while Audi had been turbocharging for years before the B7 RS4 came out. If Audi felt the need to follow BMW's philosophy there was nothing in the way of making the now current RS5 an FI car, but they simply chose not to do it. Whatever the reasons may be, I believe the emission/gas guzzling excuses could have been skirted if that's what BMW wanted to do.

Or do you know of a Z4 with fixed roof, carbon fiber body, a V8 engine and six speed sequential gearbox?

But maybe all of that does not count for you because it vaguely looks like a Z4.

Oh, well...

Alpina_B3_Lux

@Alpina_B3_Lux, I am serious - the chassis for BOTH cars is off of the EXACT SAME production line. Of course, modifications are made - but the general chassis is the same. Do you think that they literally create an entire chassis from scratch when a race car is built, or base it (or use) what they have already spent engineering dollars on? You said it yourself to Sticky - it takes a long time to engineer/develop a car (however your estimate was extremely bloated).

My entire point is - and I can't see why you are arguing against it - is that M GmbH was a way to share resources between their racing division back to us (in production cars) - and vice versa. This is a fact. Any manufacturer uses their learnings from racing - and applies it to their production cars. I don't understand what you are arguing - this is worse than the torque argument.

Furthermore, Audi has used turbocharging much more extensively in the past compared to BMW.

What do you mean? BMW is a pioneer when it comes to turbocharging. They put turbo's in production cars as far back as the mid 70's (2002 turbo), way before most car manufacturers even heard of such technology, and also before brands like porsche whose name is very much linked to turbo's.
True they have been out of it a while (80's and early 90's, after that turbodiesels came), but bmw is a brand name with a history very much linked to turbocharging as they are true pioneers in this field, and not only in F1 I mean. Why do you think they come up with those crazy contraptions like 3way turbocharging....: Experience!

People who associate bmw with NA engines don't know the full history of the brand imho.

What do you mean? BMW is a pioneer when it comes to turbocharging. They put turbo's in production cars as far back as the mid 70's (2002 turbo...

Yes, maybe I should have said recent past. 1970's turbo technology is irrelevant beyond the groundwork it laid for the future. But let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill, the point was Audi has a lot of modern/relevant experience implementing turbochargers on gas-fueled production cars and could have easily made the current RS5 a forced induction car had they wanted. Apparently Audi had a choice, while BMW pretends someone else is twisting their arm.

Of course I do, that's obvious. One only has to read your replies to understand that you don't have any idea.

That's why I'm running the site you're reading, eh?

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Both examples were bad examples. The E46 M3 engine is long-since dead and would have to be re-engineered to a considerable extent to make it comply with today's emission standards. And implanting the V8 into the 1 series chassis is not feasible if you want to sell the 1M at a competitive price.

You can't make an S54 comply with todays emissions standards but 8.4 liter V10's and 6.2 liter V8's revving to over 8000 rpm can? Huh? Would you please explain why?

You can't put an S65 into a 1M why? Didn't M motors get in Z3/Z4's and they were priced competitively?

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Ok, I see you're a bit slow on the uptake so I explain it to you in rough outlines. It's not about the displacement or hp, but about developing an engine that complies with the relevant emission standards that are in effect today. In order to do so (unless you re-use an engine that is already compliant and duly tested), you'll have to jump through all kinds of hoops and testing cycles. Theoretically possible with an old engine, but again time consuming, not cost efficient and therefor unrealistic. That's why you can't just pop in the E46 M3 engine and call it a day.

Oh, right, displacement has nothing to do with it. And the engine design of the S54, which is more advanced than many NA motors on the market meeting emission standards today, couldn't possibly meet those same standards? Huh? Because you need special tests? Huh?

Perhaps you just need a certain set of cats somewhere (um you do know the E46 M3 met stricter emission standards in the USA than it did in Europe right? OMG how was that possible?) You're just bringing up things without any support. Apparently getting an S54 to pass emissions which it was doing up until 2006 (and this motor was sold to other companies after this for quite some time) is some kind of impossibility because of "hoops to jump through." But the Viper can do it with basically the same motor its always had. The C6 Z06 can do it somehow too. Okie dokie, whatever you say.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

nd ever heard of fleet fuel consumption? I see someone else mentioned that already, but your reading comprehension is a bit lacking today.

So a couple million X1's, X3's, 3 GT's, 5 GT's, don't offset any of this? Nor the i3, i8, etc.? I wonder how Mercedes does it? Companies are getting it done. BMW gave up. That's the truth.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

It appears you haven't really researched a lot about how the 1M project came to be. Of course it was done to make money, that's BMW's main purpose after all. But the price was very competitive, compared to other similar cars such as the Audi TTRS for example. And it was made by enthusiasts who thought that a small, high-powered and fun-to-drive car should be part of the portfolio again. Nothing wrong with that in my books.

And how would that take away any options? There was no comparable option in the 1 series before. I don't quite understand the logic behind your reasoning, but that is probably because there is none.

If I bought a 1M Coupé I wouldn't feel cheated at all, it's got great value for money actually.

Oh of course, no research and no reading here. I just make things up as I go. I don't even know what a 1M is really although I've written and read more about it than... you.

If I bought a 1M coupe I would feel cheated. Hence why I would never buy one. It's not an M car, it's a parts bin mash up designed to take advantage of people who don't know any better. It's a marketing exercise. BMW saws if they could get away with a non-M motor in an M car and they did it. And you defend it. They give you less for more money and you applaud it. Sheep.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Of course it's a great engine. Have you ever driven one? The way you talk I can't imagine you did, otherwise you wouldn't say all these strange things about a great driver's car as the 1M.

For me the 1M is far more an honour to the M badge (even though I don't really care about that) than the bloated X5/X6 M or the notoriously overweight M5/M6 will ever be. So why not applauding them for bringing out something that is far more drivable and affordable at the same time?

The N54 isn't on the level of M motors. It isn't an M motor. It isn't great IMO. I've driven it and never felt like I wanted one. That's why I have a real M car, not one pretending to be one.

Why not applaud them? Because it isn't an M car. It's a parts bin car not worthy of the name. And this is going to happen more and more often now.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

It surprises me that you think it isn't. The E36 came out in 1990, the M3 in 1992. When else would they have developed it if not in the 80s?

You seem to have a very limited understanding of how car manufacturers develop cars. As quite apparently you don't know it, but the development of a new model / platform takes between 5-8 years (today less so than 20 years ago).

You should read a bit more, it's good for your knowledge, you know.

The E30 M3 was sold until 1992 and raced as well. You sure you don't need to do more reading?

You're telling me the S50B32 was developed in the 80's yet it didn't make it into the E36 M3 until 1995? So while BMW knew they were going to replace the E30 at some point they weren't sitting there working on the M3 in the 80's. They first got the E36 out and then M3 development took place as it always does. And you're telling me to read?

Sorry, nothing about the 1995 M3 delivered to the USA was developed in the 80's. Although the E36 was obviously on the drawing board I hardly think all models and upgrades were planned out. The development of the model went on mostly in the 90's and far into the 90's at that. The S50B32 isn't an 80's design, sorry, it was built in the 90's after E36's were already on the road.

It's difficult to speak to someone this far behind on a topic.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

What's wrong with making money? BMW is not Mother Theresa or a charity club, you know.

Just to clarify this for you, as you seem to have a hard time understanding it: For me an M car is in the first place about a car that drives exceptionally well, much more so than its standard cousins. The engine is one component of this package, but not the only one. Which is why the 1M is indeed a true M car for me, even if its engine may not have been entirely developed by the M division.

There's making money and there is selling out. BMW has sold out. What are you having trouble with?

So admit the engine is part of the M package? Yet have no problem with not having an M engine as part of that package? You're contradicting yourself then. The 1M is not a true M car you even admit it right here. Even BMW M admits it by stating the motor was not developed by M. It's not an M car, it never will be.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

I'm not making excuses at all. I'm offering an explanation for your benefit, as you seem to be in need of some educating.

As for you better understanding or more hands on experience, who knows (and I don't really care). All I know is that you don't know me at all, so your statements are mere speculation and are of no relevance whatsoever.

No, telling you M is dead is not speculation and has nothing to do with whether I know you or not. It has everything to do with BMW's own actions. Your existence has no impact on it one way or another.

You seem to be the one in need of education if you wish to defend BMW ditching their storied M engine history. The motors won't be as special, simple as that.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

I said: BMW racing cars do not have anything to do with their M street cars. That is a fact, if you had ever cared to look at one of these cars, be it the DTM car or the GT3 cars or whatever. Everything about them is different, there is no component at all that is ever used in a street car.

Weird. I just got back from an ALMS race where BMW was using a motor based on their street car. The E30 M3 was built for what exactly by the way? Was it DTM Racing? The E46 M3 GTR was built why? Wasn't it for homologation for ALMS? The M3 got a V8 why? Just because? The V10 in the M5 was linked to what? Wasn't it formula 1? The plant that made engine blocks for Formula 1, didn't it make the S65 and S85 engine blocks too and don't they have the same aluminum-silicon makeup the race car blocks did?

No components? Really? You're trying to talk to me when you have no clue what you are saying? M stands for Motorsport, that's what it is supposed to be. When BMW races, it's BMW MOTORSPORT doing the racing. That same division overseas M cars and Motors. What don't you get?

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Of course I can imagine (and I do hope so) that their racing experience will make them understand and develop their M street cars better. But that doesn't mean the M street cars are any good at racing without substantial modifications. The only car manufacturer who can pull that off is Porsche with the GT3. Unfortunately, BMW hasn't had anything to even come close to rival that car since the untimely demise of the M1 decades ago. But that's another discussion...

Take a look at the E30 M3 EVO III sometime, the E46 M3 CSL, the E92 M3 GTS, the M3 CRT, The E36 M3 lightweight, etc. Where have you been? Only Porsche can pull this off? Tell Mercedes and their Black Series sometime. Tell Ferrari too.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

The M for Motorsport has been nothing else than a marketing thing for a long, long time now. It's just another division of BMW as Quattro is for Audi and AMG for Mercedes. They build faster and sportier cars, based on the everyday versions of the same chassis. Racing has nothing to do with it, except for marketing purposes.

Racing HAD everything to do with it. Now they have fallen off, building cheaper crap for people to buy and plastering M badges on everything. M has fallen from grace, been diluted, that is the whole problem.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

And in that scenario, the 1M is indeed the closest car to the "Motorsport" term that has existed since the E46 M3 CSL, as I start to see a whole amateur racing community that uses that car to have fun on racetracks. And more power to them!

Wrong again because BMW actually raced that six-cylinder in the E46 M3. All they ever did with the N54 was put it in SUV's and their regular cars because that's what that motor was designed for. Efficiency, not motorsport. I never saw an SUV with an S54 or S65 in it, did you?

The 1M is not the closest car to the Motorsport term, get out of here with that nonsense. Since the CSL that would be the M3 GTS. Especially considering it has a motor BMW actually races. And is a real M car.

The non-M E36 debuted in Europe in 1990, and the E36 M3 debuted in Feb of '92, so it most certainly began development in the 80s; normal development lifecycle is around 5 years. I agree with what other people in the thread have said, the S52 was not a real M motor, it was a cost cutting marketing move by M. A bored/stroked M50 with hotter cams does not an M motor make. It's the era equivalent of doing a different exhaust manifold and a tune. That said, it was a hell of a lot more differentiated than what the S55 likely will be. And that is indeed a sad day. Not to mention the continued watering down of the base car by BMW; the F10 and F30 are both extremely disappointing to drive. Which makes it that much more difficult to make an enchanting M car. They really should just call it what it is...the BMW ///Marketing division. It's all part of a steady downward march, one that will make me cherish my S38 even more. The saying "they don't build them like they used to" is more true today than it ever has been.

The E36 was on the drawing board but what in the world does replacing the 3-Series with a new generation have anything to do with the 1995 M3 that the USA first saw (this was developed in the 80's, really? They sat on this for 8+ years?) or the updated M3 in 1996 that got the motor everyone has a boner over?

That is not all exactly true. It depends on what type of emissions you're talking about. In regard to CO2 emissions, all those us muscle cars use far more fuel and thus emit far more co2. But you're forgetting that there are also other gas emissions which are regulated due to air quality (co2 isn't directly air polluting, it's a greenhouse gas).
NOx emissions (they convert to (harmful) NO2 under the influence of ozone gas (O3)) for exemple.
And in that regard those cars you mention generally emit far less quantitys of NOx. You see: NOx is formed under high temperature, typically found in high compression/high performance engines. A s54 emits more NOx than a corvette or fiper engine. Purely because it's a far more efficient engine. That is one of the reasons why a lot of european cars have had trouble in the past to be marketed in the USA. Most high performance models are altered for USA markets. BMW uses different exhausts etc (thus slightly detuned) versions (even with s50/s54) engines for usa market. Probably because of the high NOx emissions.
And there you see the immediate difference: all those musclecars have the USA as their dominant market (sales in the rest of the world are almost non existent compared to the usa), so they are designed to fit the US legislation. And in that perspective an old fashoned big 8 liter v8 or v10 can be less polluting than a high revving, high tech 3 liter 6 cil.
But for a world operating brand as BMW they have to design their products completely differently. And I think audi will put more turbocharged engines in their RS line, just as mercedes has put in their AMG line, and BMW now in their /m line will. That bmw is going to use one of their off the shelf blocks for that is just trivial. They are apparently convinced that that block will be good enough to deliver the performance with some adjustments that can meet the competition from audi and mercedes. They are still world leader in this segment afaik.
I'm sure they will stamp an S letter in the block for guys like Sticky if it means that much to them.

That is not all exactly true. It depends on what type of emissions you're talking about. In regard to CO2 emissions, all those us muscle cars use far more fuel and thus emit far more co2. But you're forgetting that there are also other gas emissions which are regulated due to air quality (co2 isn't directly air polluting, it's a greenhouse gas).
NOx emissions (they convert to (harmful) NO2 under the influence of ozone gas (O3)) for exemple.

Yes of course but I'm pointing out if people are still doing NA motors, and performance ones at that, even without direct injection, does this mean BMW can't do it? Why are people letting them off the hook? BMW is clearly all about profit now and getting the highest profit margin possible.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

A s54 emits more NOx than a corvette or fiper engine. Purely because it's a far more efficient engine. That is one of the reasons why a lot of european cars have had trouble in the past to be marketed in the USA.

Euroe cars don't have the cat in the header.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But for a world operating brand as BMW they have to design their products completely differently. And I think audi will put more turbocharged engines in their RS line, just as mercedes has put in their AMG line, and BMW now in their /m line will.

It was already announced the next gen RS4/RS5 will have turbo motors.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I'm sure they will stamp an S letter in the block for guys like Sticky if it means that much to them.

The E36 was on the drawing board but what in the world does replacing the 3-Series with a new generation have anything to do with the 1995 M3 that the USA first saw (this was developed in the 80's, really? They sat on this for 8+ years?) or the updated M3 in 1996 that got the motor everyone has a boner over?

The E36 M3 (yes, the european one, the world (as well as this argument) doesn't revolve around the US) was released in 92. The M3 would've been in testing for at least two years before it's debut. And would have been in the design phase for at least two years prior. Which puts us in the 1980s. I agree, no way they sat on the US M3 for 8 years. They took an M50, bored and stroked it and added some cams. With durability testing, probably took all of one year, two tops. Which is why I don't consider it a true M motor...they raided the corporate parts bin for a block and head, bored, stroked and cammed it, and took away the beefier rear end and Getrag.

Replacing the 3-series with a new generation has nothing to do with the 95 M3, in the same way that the 95 M3 has nothing to do with when the Euro (real) E36 M3 was developed. The US M3 was just that...the US car. ROW was enjoying the full monte M product well before we were, you know that. And if you think that the M division got the E36 M3 together, complete with S50B30, different subframe, transmission, ECU, and did a complete battery of tuning and durability tests in 2 years and 2 months...I have a bridge you might want to buy.

Yes of course but I'm pointing out if people are still doing NA motors, and performance ones at that, even without direct injection, does this mean BMW can't do it?

They can't do that because they couldn't sell those cars in the rest of the world. And that is where BMW's biggest market lies.
I mean look at vipers and corvettes: how much do you think dodge/corvette sells abroad? That's next to none from what they're selling in the US. But if BMW would design cars that would only sell good in the US, they would go bankrupt. The US market is not big enough for that. I think a corvette outsells the m3 4:1 or something like that in the US. BMW has too little US marketshare to make US cars.
It's not that bmw is not capable of producing a large NA engine with lots of power to specifically fit the US, but if they did, they would sign their own bankrupcy. They are a world player, not an US player.

I see 1m as a test to see how the world reacts to a reworked semi bespoke m rather the full on beans. They have clearly decided their target market liked that kind of thing. If folks feel offended now that leaves two options:
A) they have something really special that will change your mind,
B) you are no longer their target market.

The E36 M3 (yes, the european one, the world (as well as this argument) doesn't revolve around the US) was released in 92. The M3 would've been in testing for at least two years before it's debut. And would have been in the design phase for at least two years prior. Which puts us in the 1980s. I agree, no way they sat on the US M3 for 8 years. They took an M50, bored and stroked it and added some cams. With durability testing, probably took all of one year, two tops. Which is why I don't consider it a true M motor...they raided the corporate parts bin for a block and head, bored, stroked and cammed it, and took away the beefier rear end and Getrag.

Replacing the 3-series with a new generation has nothing to do with the 95 M3, in the same way that the 95 M3 has nothing to do with when the Euro (real) E36 M3 was developed. The US M3 was just that...the US car. ROW was enjoying the full monte M product well before we were, you know that. And if you think that the M division got the E36 M3 together, complete with S50B30, different subframe, transmission, ECU, and did a complete battery of tuning and durability tests in 2 years and 2 months...I have a bridge you might want to buy.

You seemed to miss the point. Saying the E36 was developed in the 80's when the majority of the models were developed in the 90's including the US M3, the M3 cab, the S50B53, S52, etc., would point to the vast majority if not all of the E36 M3 development taking place in the 90's not 80's. Notice the quote was E36 M3 not E36 as a whole.

They can't do that because they couldn't sell those cars in the rest of the world. And that is where BMW's biggest market lies.
I mean look at vipers and corvettes: how much do you think dodge/corvette sells abroad? That's next to none from what they're selling in the US. But if BMW would design cars that would only sell good in the US, they would go bankrupt. The US market is not big enough for that. I think a corvette outsells the m3 4:1 or something like that in the US. BMW has too little US marketshare to make US cars.
It's not that bmw is not capable of producing a large NA engine with lots of power to specifically fit the US, but if they did, they would sign their own bankrupcy. They are a world player, not an US player.

People abroad are taxed by displacement but how does this change that BMW can not do an NA motor any longer? Honda, toyota, GM, Ford, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mercedes, Audi, basically everyone still does NA motors so this is a load of crap.

Nobody is saying they should only sell cars for the USA. If anything, if they would sell more cars here if they actually imported all their models here. Like their best drivers cars...

Oh and if the USA market doesn't matter why are we constantly reminded by BMW the USA is their largest market (which it is) and also why do we get the manual transmission for the E60, E63, F10, and F13 but the rest of the world doesn't? What this has to do with the topic though I have no clue.